Skip to main content

Full text of "Animal Welfare Information Center newsletter"

See other formats

Historic, Archive Document 

Do not assume content reflects current 
scientific l<nowledge, policies, or practices. 


Animal Welfare 
Information Center 


Summer 1996 
Vol. 7. No. 2 
ISSN: 1 050-561 X 

In Session 

by Cynthia Smith 

• H.R. 1269 A bill to amend the Act 
of June 22, 1974, to authorize the 
Secretary of Agriculture to 
prescribe by regulation the repre- 
sentation of Woodsy Ov>\. 

Introduced on March 21, 1995, 
by Carlos Moorhead (R-Calif.) and 
referred to the Committee on the 

Section 1 of the act entitled "An 
act to prevent the unauthorized 
manufacture and use of the character 
'Woodsy Owl,' and for other pur- 
poses" is amended by amending para- 
graph (1) to read: the term "Woodsy 
Owl" means the name and repre- 
sentation of a fanciful owl who fur- 
thers the slogan, "Give a Hoot, Don't 
Pollute," originated by the Forest Ser- 
vice of the U.S. Department of 

• H.R. 2854 A bill to modify the 
operation of certain agricultural 

Introduced on January 5, 1996, 
by Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and signed 
into law by President Clinton on April 
4, 1996, as Public Law 104-127. This 

(cont'd p. 12) 


Protection for Cats and Dogs 



Policies for Service Animals 



Service Animal Information 



Humane Scientist - Rex Burch 






Livestock Ethics Symposium 



A Review of the Animal Welfare 
Enforcement Report Data 
1973 Through 1995 


Richard L. Crawford, DVM 
Animal Welfare Infonnation Center, National Agricultural Library, Agricultural 
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD 


The data for this review is 
taken from the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal 
Welfare Enforcement reports, hereafter 
referred to as "annual reports," issued 
each year from 1973 through 1995. 
The annual reports deal with the num- 
ber of Hcensed and registered 
facilities, animals used in pain and dis- 
tress reporting categories, and the 
number of regulated animals reported 
used in research for each of the years. 
This compilation of the report data 
from 1973 to 1995 is not meant to be 
detailed or comprehensive or to estab- 
lish any definite concepts or con- 
clusions. It is offered solely to present 
the data to those interested in such in- 
formation, to point out areas of report- 
ing that have changed over the years or 
that may be of questionable value, and 
to provide some overall trends in enfor- 
cement of the Animal Welfare Act 
(AW A) over a 23-year history. It is 
hoped that this information will stimu- 
late some thought, discussion, and fur- 
ther analysis of the data. For example, 
although some stolen dogs have been 
found in research facilities, the num- 
ber of dogs reported used in research 
each year certainly does not support 
the claim that milhons of stolen dogs 
are used in research. 

In this review, the following 
tables contain data from tht Animal 
Welfare Enforcement reports to Con- 
gress from 1973 through 1995: 

Table 1. Number of Licensees and 

Registrants: 1973-1995 
Table 2. Number of Regulated 

Animals Used in Research: 1973- 


Table 3. Number of Animals Used in 
Pain/Distress Reporting 
Categories: 1973-1995 

Immediately following each table 
are figures to graphically portray the 
data from the tables: 

Figure 1. Licensed Dealers: 1973-1995 
Figure 2. Exhibitors: 1973-1995 
Figure 3. Research Facilities: 1973-1995 
Figure 4. Pain and Distress 

Categories: 1973-1995 
Figure 5. Animals Used in Research: 

Figure 6. Dogs and Cats Used in 

Research: 1973-1995 
Figure 7. Nonhuman Primates Used 

in Research: 1973-1995 
Figure 8. Guinea Pigs, Hamsters, and 

Rabbits Used in Research: 1973- 


Figure 9. Other Animals Used in 
Research: 1973-1995 

Notes are provided for each table 
to indicate issues or events affecting 

National Agricultural Library, AWIC, Beltsville, MD 20705 Phone (301)504-6212 Fax (301)504-7125 E-mail 

Table 1. Number of Licensees and Registrants, 1973-1995 



















































































































































































The 1976 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (PL 94-279), approved April 22, 1976, pertained to 
the transportation of regulated animals in commerce and brought carriers and intermediate handlers 
under regulation. Transportation standards became effective September 15, 1977, and carriers and in- 
termediate handlers were first included in the 1978 annual report. 

The 1976 amendments also required Federal research facilities to comply with the Animal Welfare 
Act and to submit annual reports to USDA Federal facility reports were submitted for the period April 
22, 1976, through December 31, 1976. Many Federal facilities did not report or made only partial 
reports. Federal research facilities are not inspected by USDA, but are required to comply with the Act, 
regulations, and standards. 

The 1982 and 1983 annual reports listed only combined figures for carriers and intermediate handlers. 
Separate figures are not available. 

In 1994, a much higher number of research facilities submitted annual reports than ever before. This 
is probably due to continued efforts by REAC to improve reporting by research facilities. 
APHIS reorganized the animal welfare program effective October 1, 1988. Animal welfare was moved 
from Veterinary Services to Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care. This transition affected report- 
ing procedures and resulted in inaccurate reporting for Federal agencies for 1988 and 1989. 

be noted that this data does not 
include birds, rats of the genus 
Rattus, or mice of the genus Mus 
bred for laboratory use, but it 
does include wild rats and mice. 

The original Laboratory 
Animal Welfare Act (PL 89- 
544), passed August 24, 1966, 
did not require annual reports 
be made to USDA. The Animal 
Welfare Act of 1970 (PL 91-579) 
(approved December 24, 1970) 
required that research facilities 
report certain information to 
USDA, which submits an annual 
report to Congress containing 
specific information not later 
than March of each year. The 
first Animal Welfare Enforcement 
report to Congress was in 1973, 
and annual reports have con- 
tinued since that time with 
several reporting changes along 
the way. Each of the annual 
report tables will be discussed 

Licensees and Registrants 

The AWA requires the 
licensing of animal exhibitors, 
dealers, and animal auction 
operators. Registrants are all 
carriers, intermediate handlers, 
exhibitors not subject to licens- 
ing, and non-Federal research 
facilities. The number of licen- 
sees and registrants for each 
year are shown in table 1. 
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show the num- 
ber of licensed dealers, ex- 
hibitors, and research faciUties 
from 1973 to 1995 followed by a 
brief analysis of each category. 
Instances that may have affected 
the reporting are indicated by 
numbered notes for that year. 

Intermediate Handlers 

reporting requirements. It should be 
noted that each year a variable number 
of research faciUties did not submit 
reports or submitted reports too late to 
be included in the annual report. The 
data, therefore, does not include all 
regulated animals used in research be- 
cause these late, or nonreporting, 

facilities were omitted. This problem 
decreased significantly over the past 4 
or 5 years because of a concerted effort 
by USDA's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS), 
Regulatory Enforcement and Animal 
Care (REAC) unit to improve report- 
ing by research facilities. It should also 

Intermediate handlers are 
people and businesses that hand- 
le animals to and from the air- 
port, during layovers, and be- 
tween connecting flights. Hand- 
lers receive custody of the animals 
during transportation in commerce. In- 
termediate handlers were brought 
under regulation by the 1976 amend- 
ments to the AWA. There were 16 
registered intermediate handlers in 
1978. This figure slowly increased to 
301 in 1991 and has decreased since 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

that time to 275 in 1995. Since 1981, 
the number has fluctuated between 200 
and 300 intermediate handlers. These 
fluctuations are most likely due to 
people going into and out of business 
for various reasons. 


A carrier is a person or enterprise 
engaged in the business of transporting 
animals for hire. Carriers are mostly 
commercial airlines. Carriers were 
brought under regulation by the 1976 
amendments to the AWA. In 1978, 
there were 50 registered carriers. This 
figure increased to 145 in 1989 and has 
steadily decreased since then to 98 in 
1995. This decrease is most likely due 
to changes within the industry, airline 
mergers, or companies going out of 
business. Most airlines have sites 
(cargo and passenger terminals) at 
many airports throughout the United 
States. Not all of these sites are in- 
spected by USDA. Inspections by 
USDA are usually restricted to the 
larger airports where animal shipments 
may begin or terminate and at hub air- 
ports where animals may change flights 
or airlines. 


A dealer is any person who buys, 
sells, negotiates the sale, or transports 
regulated animals (live or dead), or 
parts of regulated animals for regu- 
lated purposes. Retail pet stores, as 
defined in the AWA regulations, and 
people selUng domestic pet animals 
directly to the pet owner are not in- 
cluded in the definition of a dealer. 
There are two classes of dealers: A and 
B. Class A dealers are breeders who 
only sell the animals they breed and 
raise. Class B dealers are those who 
buy and resell animals, negotiate or ar- 
range for the sale of animals, or deliver 
for transportation or transport, animals 
that are in commerce for compensation. 

In 1973, the first year USDA was 
required to report to Congress, there 
were 4,287 Ucensed dealers. This fig- 
ure increased over the next 2 years to a 
high of 5,680 in 1975. The number of 
dealers then dropped each year to 
3,365 in 1984. Since then, the number 
of dealers has again risen to 4,400 in 
1991 with a slight decline in 1992 and 
1993 to a total of 4,080 in 1995. The 

figures have been more or less stable 
since 1988. 

It is difficult to analyze the in- 
crease and decrease in the number of 
dealers over the years as many factors 
may be involved. Based on my 27 years 
in the Animal Welfare program, the fol- 
lowing factors probably played a sig- 
nificant role in the variations. The in- 
crease from 1973 to 1975 was most like- 
ly due to persons starting business and 
becoming hcensed with the idea of 
making money by selling animals with 
as little expense as possible. The 
decrease from 1975 to 1985 was probab- 
ly due to a combination of economics 
and USDA enforcement action against 
the poorest dealers. Those dealers 
with minimal, or substandard, opera- 
tions found they could not make suffi- 
cient money because of unhealthy 
animals and additionally were subject 
to legal action and possible penalties 
from USDA. As the years went by, 
USDA increased the number of legal 
actions and the severity of the penalties 
against the dealers who were not in 
compliance. This continuous decline in 
the number of dealers for about 10 
years appears to coincide with enforce- 
ment efforts and public concern. 

In 1985, the number of dealers 
started increasing again and has held 
fairly steady, in the low 4,000 range, 
since 1988. It was about this time that 

the wholesale pet trade began to or- 
ganize because of concerns with poor 
dealer operations and the industry's 
economic future in view of bad 
publicity it was receiving. Concerned 
members of the pet trade succeeded in 
organizing and establishing standards 
for a voluntary, self-regulation pro- 
gram. This effort continues to grow 
and provide a higher quality animal to 
the pet market. This has very possibly 
influenced the stability in the number 
of dealers since about 1988. Also, 
several States in the Midwest have 
passed legislation to oversee dealers 
and have implemented regulatory 
programs to improve animal care and 
housing. These programs, in conjunc- 
tion with the AWA and with coopera- 
tion between the States and APHIS, 
have impacted dealer operations. 

Although the dealer category in- 
cludes people selling animals for pets, 
exhibition, research, and auction sales; 
wild and exotic animal dealers; and 
some transporters, most are involved in 
the pet trade. The total number of 
class B dealers has usually averaged 
about 25 percent to 30 percent of the 
total number of dealers, with less than 
100 random source B dealers providing 
animals for research purposes. The 
rest of the B dealers are involved in the 
pet trade, wild or exotic animal sales, 
or transportation. Most A dealers (or 




Licensed Dealers 


n \ I \ \ I — \ — r 
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 

~l \ \ I \ \ I \ I \ 1 1 1 1 

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 


Figure 1 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


Figure 2 

breeders) are involved in the pet trade, 
witli a small number raising animals for 
research. Significant variations in the 
number of dealers would, therefore, 
mostly involve the pet trade. 


An exhibitor is anyone obtaining, 
distributing, or transporting regulated 
animals in commerce and exhibiting 
them to the public for compensation. 
Most exhibitors meet these require- 
ments and are required to license with 
USDA. Those who do not obtain, dis- 
pose of, or transport animals in com- 
merce and who receive no compensa- 
tion are registered. Both Hcensed and 
registered exhibitors must comply with 
the same regulations and standards, 
however. Exhibitors are involved in a 
variety of endeavors such as municipal 
or county zoos, roadside and private 
zoos, theme parks, marine mammal 
parks, petting zoos, educational ex- 
hibits, circuses and carnivals, animal 
acts, and animals used in television and 
movie work. 

Exhibitors were brought under 
regulation by the 1970 amendments to 
the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act 
and were included in the first report to 
Congress in 1973. There were 286 
Hcensed exhibitors in 1973. The num- 
ber of licensed exhibitors has increased 

each year since then with 1,937 ex- 
hibitors being licensed in 1995. Some 
of this increase is due to the regulation 
of additional species of animals, such 
as the regulation of marine mammals in 
1979 and farm animals in 1990. Some 
of the increase is due to changing im- 
properly registered exhibitors to a 

licensed exhibitor status. Most of the 
growth, however, has been due to an 
increase in animal exhibit facilities 
and animal acts being presented to 
the pubhc for entertainment and en- 

Registered exhibitors totaled 604 
in 1973 and reached a high of 752 in 
1974. Since that time, registered ex- 
hibitors have steadily decreased each 
year with a total of 31 in 1995. This is 
due to the fact that many exhibitors 
were improperly registered in the first 
couple of years of regulation when 
they should have been licensed. Con- 
tinued review of registered exhibitors 
by USDA has resulted in most of 
them being converted to a licensed ex- 
hibitor status with only a small num- 
ber qualifying for registration. 

The types of animals involved in 
the regulation of exhibitors range 
from wild rodents and bats to 
elephants and killer whales. The total 
number of exhibitors (both licensed 
and registered) was 890 in 1973 and 
1,968 in 1995, a Hltle over double the 
number of exhibitors regulated in 1973. 

Researcfi Facilities 

A research facility is any person, 
institution, organization, or school (ex- 
cept an elementary or secondary 
school) that uses or intends to use regu- 

Research Facilities 


1,600 -| 

800 : : ' ■ ■ 1 ] i ] \ \ i i ] ] \ 1 

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 


Figure 3 


AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

Table 2. Regulated Animals Used in Research, 1973-1995 


All Animals 




Guinea Pigs 



Farm Animals 

Other Animals 






















































































































































































































1. Animals were reported only from January 1, 1977, through September 30, 1977, because of a change in reporting from calendar year to fiscal 

2. Farm animals were regulated in June 1990, and required to be reported. 

3. A review of the 1993 annual report indicates inaccuracies in the figures for farm animals and other animals because of birds and cold-blooded 
species such as fish, frogs, and lizards, being included in the counts. The correct figure for farm animals for 1993 is 165,416 instead of 365,233. 
The correct figure for other animals is 212,309 instead of 677,556. This also changes the total for all animals to 1,704,505 instead of 2,369,439. 

4. Addition mistakes were made in calculating the total number of all animals used in research in the annual reports for 1973,1975, 1976, 1977, 
1981, and 1982. The figures indicated in the annual report for these years for all animals used in research are as follows: 

1973 1,653,132 

1975 1,378,030 

1976 1, 779,837 

1977 1,521,595 

1981 1,658,439 

1982 1,576,556 

The correct flgures for all animals for these years are shown in table 2. 

lated animals in research, tests, experi- 
ments, or teaching, and that purchases 
or transports animals in commerce, or 
receives Federal funds for carrying out 
such research, tests, experiments, or 
teaching. Research facilities that use 
animals include hospitals, colleges and 
universities, diagnostic and toxicology 
laboratories, pharmaceutical com- 
panies, and biotechnology industries. 

Research facilities are classified as ac- 
tive or inactive facilities. An inactive 
facility is one where no regulated 
animals are kept or used. The total 
number of registered research facilities 
in 1995 was 1,300 (both active and inac- 
tive). There were an additional 223 
Federal research facilities reporting. 

In the first annual report to Con- 
gress in 1973, there were 865 registered 

research facilities. The number of re- 
search facilities increased almost yearly 
to a high of 1,527 in 1992. The total 
dropped to 1,331 in 1993, rose to 1,511 
in 1994, then dropped again slightly to 
1,300 in 1995. This is almost a 75-per- 
cent increase over the number of 
registered research facilities in 1973. 
A research facility may have only one 
animal site or may have more than a 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


Table 3. Animals Used in Pain Reporting Categories, 1973-1995 


No Pain 

No Drugs 

With Pain/Distress 

With Drugs 

With Pain/Distress 

Without Drugs 




(1,774) 65,301 



































































1. The 1973 and early L974 annual report did not request the number of animals used in 
research, but only requested the number of experiments involving unrelieved pain or 
distress for animals. This is the first year reports were required. From late 1974 to 
1978, only animals involving unrelieved pain or distress were required to be reported. 
The number of experiments reported in 1973 and 1974 are shown in parentheses, 
with the numbers of animals reported shown each year thereafter. 

2. In late 1974, a revised reporting form was distributed to research facilities requesting 
the number of animals exposed to unrelieved pain rather than the number of experi- 
ments. Figures for both the number of animals and the number of experiments are 
shown for 1974. 

3. Reports on the number of animals used subject to unrelieved pain (no drugs) were 
reported only from January 1, 1977, through September 30, 1977, because of a change 
in reporting from calendar year to fiscal year. 

4. The 1979 annual report was the first report to list both the number of animals used 
involving pain that was relieved by drugs and the number of animals used involving 
unrelieved pain (no drugs). 

5. APHIS reorganized the animal welfare program effective October 1, 1988. Animal 
welfare was moved from Veterinary Services to Regulatory Enforcement and Animal 
Care. This transition affected reporting lines and procedures and could have affected 
the data in both reporting categories. 

6. The reporting of animals used involving no pain and no drugs, in addition to the two 
previous categories, was required in the 1989 annual report. 

dozen animal sites. In 1995, the 1,300 
registered research facilities had 2,688 
animal sites. The almost 75-percent in- 
crease in research facilities since 1973 
presents an interesting statistic, especial- 
ly when research dollars are reportedly 
becoming harder to obtain. From the in- 
crease in the number of research 
facilities, one would surmise that the 
competition for research funding has sig- 
nificantly increased, the amount of fund- 
ing for research has significantly in- 
creased, research has changed to use 
less expensive methods, or a great deal 
more private money is being used for re- 
search. From this data, it is not clear 
why the number of research facilities has 
increased so dramatically but the rapid 
developments in biotechnology, 
medicine, and pharmaceuticals are good 

When one looks at the number of 
research facilities compared to the total 
number of animals used in research (ex- 
cluding birds, laboratory rats and mice, 
and cold-blooded species) over the 
same period, the data is even more inter- 
esting. The total number of regulated 
animals used in research is shown in 
table 2. In 1973, there were 1,653,132 
animals reported used in research, not 
counting farm animals, birds, rats, or 
mice. In 1995, there were 1,395,644 
regulated animals reported used in re- 
search, including farm animals but not 
including birds, rats, or mice. It is recog- 
nized that the actual figures on animal 
use are not complete each year because 
of too-late reports, or because no 
reports have been submitted. Because 
birds, rats, and mice are not included in 
the number of animals reported, the 
numbers of these animals may have in- 
creased while the number of regulated 
animals showed little change. There is 
also some variation in reporting from 
year to year for various reasons. Still, 
the overall trend over 23 years should be 
fairly valid. 

The figures vary up and down over 
the years but remain fairly consistent. 
Why has the number of research 
facilities shown an almost 75-percent in- 
crease while the total number of animals 
used has remained fairly steady? There 
could be any number of reasons. In 
their book Hie Principles of Humane Ex- 
perimental Technique (1959, reprinted in 
1992 by the Universities Federation for 
Animal Welfare, Herts, England), 
W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch ad- 


AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

vanced the concept of the 3Rs--reduc- 
tion in animal number, refinement of 
technique to minimize pain and dis- 
tress, and replacement of animal 
models with nonanimal models. In cur- 
rent research, the 3R's may be working 
better than many people realize. It is 
also possible that economics may have 
played a role in this as well as scientific 
and technological improvements within 
the industry. I will not attempt to offer 
an answer here, but only to pose the 
question. Perhaps some industrious 
person will look into this question more 

Federal Agencies 

The AWA amendments of 1976 
required Federal research facilities to 
submit an annual report to USDA. 
The report to Congress for 1976 indi- 
cated 40 Federal research facilities 
reporting for the period from April 22, 
1976, through December 31, 1976. The 
1977 report showed 134 Federal re- 
search facihties reporting. The figures 
vary between about 130 and 160 report- 
ing Federal research facilities over the 
next 17 years. In 1994, there were 250 
Federal research facilities reporting, 
with a drop to 223 in 1995. This 
general increase in the number of 
Federal research facilities report- 
ing could be due to several factors: 
(1) A concerted effort on behalf of 
USDA to improve reporting by re- 
search facihties, (2) congressional 
investigation of research in the 
Department of Defense (DoD) in 
the early 1990's, and (3) meetings 
of the Interagency Research 
Animal Committee (IRAC). 
These may all have assisted in im- 
proving the reporting by Federal 
agencies. The 2 years, 1988 and 
1989, show 58 reporting Federal re- 
search facilities. These figures are 
not correct. The animal welfare 
program was removed from 
USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Ser- 
vices (VS), on September 30, 1988, 
and estabhshed as USDA, APHIS, 
Regulatory Enforcement and 
Animal Care (REAC) on October 
1, 1988. Because of the reorganiza- 
tion, change of responsibility, new 
offices and personnel, and new 
reporting Unes, incorrect data was 

obtained for these 2 years. The correct 
figures could not be obtained for these 
years. The next 4 years show reporting 
Federal research facility numbers 
about equivalent to the numbers in 
preceding years, and a significant in- 
crease occurred in reporting Federal re- 
search facilities in 1994 and 1995. The 
increased scrutiny of research by Con- 
gress, animal rights groups, and the 
public, plus efforts by USDA, APHIS 
to improve facihty reporting, are 
probably responsible in part for this in- 
crease in reporting Federal research 

Pain/Distress Reporting 

The number of animals used in 
pain and distress reporting categories 
each year is shown in table 3. Figure 4 
shows the data from 1973 through 1995 
followed by a brief analysis of each 
category. Instances that may have af- 
fected the reporting are indicated by 
numbered notes for that year immedi- 
ately after the table. 


The first annual report in 1973 
and most of the year of 1974 required 
only the reporting of the number of "ex- 
periments" involving animals with un- 
relieved pain or distress. In the latter 
part of 1974, research facihties were re- 
quired to report the number of animals 
used involving unrelieved pain or dis- 
tress rather than the number of experi- 
ments. The data for these 2 years, 
therefore, is questionable when used 
with the rest of the data in table 3. The 
first year with valid usable data is 1975. 
Also, in 1988, APHIS reorganized the 
animal welfare program by removing it 
from Veterinary Services (VS) and 
placing it in Regulatory Enforcement 
and Animal Care (REAC). In looking 
at the figures for 1988, it is apparent 
that they differ somewhat from the 
figures of the previous years and the 
years following 1988. The figures may 
be questionable because of the disrup- 
tion and change in reporting, inspec- 
tion, and recordkeeping procedures be- 
cause of the APHIS reorganization. 
The 1988 figures should, therefore, be 
viewed with caution. It should also be 
remembered that these figures do not 

Pain and Distress Categories 

1 973 - 1 995 



V) 1,000.000 









With Pain/Distress Without Drugs 
With Pain/Distress With Drugs 
No Pain/Distress No Drugs 






73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 

83 84 85 


86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 

Figure 4 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


include birds, rats, or mice, and only 
include farm animals starting in June of 

With Pain/Distress and 
Without Drugs 

The data reported in 1973 and 
part of 1974 was for the number of ex- 
periments involving unrelieved pain or 
distress to the animals rather than the 
number of animals used. In late 1974, 
research facilities were required to 
report the number of animals subjected 
to unrelieved pain or distress rather 
than the number of experiments. The 
figures in parentheses in 1973 and 1974 
indicate the number of experiments 
while the other figures indicate the 
number of animals. The first entire 
year for reporting animals subject to 
unrelieved pain or distress was 1975. 
The 1975 annual report indicates 
117,756 animals with unrelieved pain 
were used in research that year. The 
following years show an up-and-down 
pattern with a low of 89,624 reported in 
1990, a high of 179,187 reported in 1994 
and a drop to 123,374 in 1995. The 
figures show a varied pattern over the 
years and, except for a peak of 150,191 
in 1978, a general increase in the num- 
ber of animals subjected to unrelieved 
pain or distress from 1975 to 1985. 

From 1986 to 1991, there was a general 
reduction in the number of animals sub- 
jected to unreheved pain or distress 
and then increases in 1992, 1993, and 
1994 to a high of 179,187, with a 
decrease in 1995. The increase in the 
number of reported animals used in ex- 
periments involving unrelieved pain or 
distress in 1993 and 1994 may be due to 
better and more standard reporting 
procedures and an increase in the num- 
ber of research facilities reporting on 
time. There may be other reasons also, 
such as a change in the type of research 
being conducted, which is not apparent 
from the data collected. Additional in- 
formation is necessary for further 
analysis. It is interesting to note that 
there were not corresponding 
decreases in the number of animals sub- 
jected to pain or distress that was al- 
leviated by drugs. 

With Pain/Distress and With 

In 1979, the annual report con- 
tained data on the number of animals 
used in potentially painful or distressful 
procedures in which the pain or dis- 
tress was relieved by drugs as well as 
the number of animals subjected to un- 
relieved pain or distress. The data for 
1979 shows 504,790 animals used in 

potentially painful or distressful proce- 
dures in which the pain or distress was 
relieved by drugs. The figures hold fair- 
ly steady over the years except for 
spikes in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1992, and 
1993. I can offer no reason for the 
higher numbers in these years other 
than changes in the type of research 
that was carried out during these 
periods or misreporting. Again, more 
information is necessary to properly ex- 
plain these figures. 

No Pain/Distress and No 

In 1989, the Department began 
collecting data on the number of 
animals used in research projects in- 
volving no pain or distress and no pain- 
relieving drugs. These figures have 
held fairly steady, at about the 1-mil- 
lion range, over the past 7 years, with 
the lowest number of 754,712 reported 
in 1995. There is insufficient data here 
to draw any conclusions other than that 
the numbers are fairly comparable 
each year. 

Animals Used in 

The number of regulated animals 
reported used in research is shown in 
table 2. Figures 5 through 9 show the 
breakdown by type of animal. Instan- 
ces that may have affected the report- 
ing are indicated by numbered notes 
for that year immediately following the 


The number of animals used in re- 
search has been a controversial topic 
for many years. There is little reliable 
data on the number of animals used in 
research other than Animal Welfare En- 
forcement, USDA's annual report to 
Congress. The annual report figures 
are not accurate and complete in the 
number of animals used in research for 
the following reasons: 

1. The Animal Welfare Act regulates 
only warm-blooded animals, and 
there are some exceptions. 

2. Rats of the genus Rattus, mice of 
the genus Mus, and birds are not 
presently regulated or required to 
be reported. 

Animals Used in Research 
1973- 1995 






= 1,500,000 

^ 1,000,000 



n 1 i ! I '■ i I 1 I i I \ I ; i I I 1 I 

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 S5 86 87 88 89 90 01 92 93 94 95 


Figure 5 


AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

Dogs and Cats Used in Research 


73 74 75 78 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 


Figure 6 

3. Farm animals were not regulated 
and reported until June 1990. 

4. Annual reports compiled by USDA 
were not complete in that some 
facility annual reports were not 
received at all or were received too 
late to be included in the annual 
report to Congress. Significant im- 
provement has been made in this 
area over the past several years. 

Even with these omissions, the 
USDA annual report data is the best 
available for the numbers of regulated 
animals used in research. While defini- 
tive conclusions cannot be made from 
this data, general trends can be ob- 
served from the numbers of animals 
reported. Any analysis of the figures 
on the numbers of animals used in re- 
search should also consider the num- 
ber of registered research facilities, 
which increased from 865 in 1973 to 
1,527 in 1992, then decreased to 1,300 
in 1995. I do not intend to do a 
detailed analysis of these figures, but 
only to point out general trends and 
possible influencing factors. I leave the 
detailed analysis to those more capable 
than I in these matters. Have fun! 

All Animals Used in Research 

This category includes warm- 
blooded animals used for research ex- 

cept for rats of the genus Rattus, mice 
of the genus Mus, and birds. Addition- 
ally, farm animals used for food, fiber, 
and other agricultural purposes are not 
included in these figures. 

In 1973, a reported 1,653,345 regu- 
lated animals were used in research 
with 1,395,463 animals reported used 
in research in 1995. The figures 
reported between 1973 and 1995 vary 
with highs of 2,074,133 in 1984, 
2,153,787 in 1985, and 2,134,182 in 
1992. With the exception of these high 
years, the rest of the years are fairly 
constant in the number of animals used 
in research with some fluctuation but 
within the range of 1 to 2 million. Over- 
all, the total number of regulated 
animals used in research has not sig- 
nificantly increased or decreased in the 
past 23 years. The increase in the num- 
ber of registered research facilities 
from 865 in 1973 to 1,300 in 1995 poses 
some interesting questions. Are more 
research facilities using fewer animals 
each year? Are more research 
facilities using nonregulated animals? 
Have the 3R's had an impact on the 
number of animals used? How have 
economics and increasing costs af- 
fected the number of animals used in 
research? Not only is it likely that all 
these factors have had some impact on 
the number of animals used, but addi- 
tional factors that are not so readily ap- 

parent may be involved. A look at the 
number of animals used, by species, 
may give an indication of what is hap- 

Dogs Used in Research 

In 1973, there were 195,157 dogs 
reported used in research. This figure 
stayed in the high 100,000 range until 
1985 with peaks of over 200,000 in 
1976, 1979, and 1984. There were 
194,905 dogs reported used in research 
in 1985. This number then gradually 
decreased over the next 10 years to a 
low of 89,420 dogs in 1995. The num- 
ber of dogs used appears to be fairly 
constant between 1973 and 1985. 
From 1985 to 1995, the numbers of 
dogs used for research continued to 
decrease. In 1985, the Improved Stand- 
ards for Laboratory Animals Act was 
passed as an amendment to the AWA. 
This amendment required research 
facilities to develop and carry out a 
plan to provide for exercise for dogs 
maintained at research facilities. It is 
interesting to note that the decline in 
the use of dogs reported used for re- 
search follows the passage of the 1985 
amendment to the AWA. During the 
period just before 1985 and in the years 
since 1985, there has been increased 
concern and pressure from humane 
and animal rights groups concerning 
dogs used in research. Could com- 
pliance with the opportunity for exer- 
cise requirement have encouraged re- 
search facilities to review their use of 
dogs in research and to eliminate the 
nonessential use of dogs to reduce com- 
pliance problems and expenses? This 
decline suggests that the amendment 
encouraged implementation of the 3R's 
and researchers reduced the number of 
dogs used by substituting other species 
or methods. It is very Hkely that other 
factors, such as economics, also played 
a role in decreasing the number of dogs 
used in research since 1985. 

Cats Used in Research 

In 1973, there were 66,195 cats 
reported used in research. This figure 
rose to a high of 74,259 in 1974. From 
1975 to 1987, the number of cats used 
in research fluctuated in the range of 
50,000 to 60,000 except for a rise to 
70,468 in 1976. Since 1986, the number 
of cats used in research has steadily 
declined to a low 29,569 in 1995. This 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


Nonhuman Primates Used in Research 

1973- 1995 





1 1 I I 1 ' i I i I I T" 

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 


~i I I I I \ I I I 

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 

Figure 7 

9-year decrease in the number of cats 
used in research is similar to the 10- 
year decrease in the use of dogs in re- 
search. The factors that may have in- 
fluenced the use of cats in research are 
not as strong, or comparable, to the fac- 
tors that possibly influenced the use of 
dogs in research. There were no spe- 
cial requirements placed on cats by 
the 1985 amendment as were placed 
on dogs, so there is no legislative in- 
fluence to precipitate such a decline 
in numbers. Is it possible that 
economic factors, the 3R's, and as- 
sociated influence from the use of 
dogs affected the use of cats in re- 
search? The decrease in the number 
of cats used in research during the 
same time period as the decrease in 
the number of dogs used may be coin- 
cidental, but the time period and 
decreased numbers suggest a connec- 
tion. Whatever the cause, there has 
been a significant decrease in the num- 
ber of cats used in research since 

Nonhuman Primates Used in 

primates reported used in research 
varied mostly within the range of 40,000 
to 50,000 with highs of 59,359 in 1979 
and 61,392 in 1987. The 1995 report in- 
dicated 50,206 nonhuman primates 
used in research. Overall, the trend in 
nonhuman primates used in research 
appears to be fairly steady. The 1985 

amendment to the AWA also re- 
quired a physical environment ade- 
quate to promote the psychological 
well-being of nonhuman primates. 
This requirement, however, has not 
led to a decrease in the number of 
nonhuman primates used in research 
as possibly occurred with the use of 
dogs. There has also been concern 
and opposition from animal protec- 
tion groups about use of nonhuman 
primates in research, but this has ap- 
parently not affected the use of non- 
human primates. There are also no 
apparent economic issues that have 
led to any decrease in use of non- 
human primates. The data suggests 
that the type of research involving 
nonhuman primates either requires 
nonhuman primates as the animal 
model or that the research involving 
nonhuman primates is important 
enough to continue their use so that 
the 3R's have had little applicability. 
Whatever the reasons, the number of 
nonhuman primates used in research 
has changed little over the past 22 

Guinea Pigs Used in Research 

In 1973, there were 408,970 
guinea pigs reported used in research. 
This figure gradually increased to a 

Guinea Pigs/Hamsters/Rabbits 

1973- 1995 









— Guinea Pigs 



I I I I 1 r I I i 1 I I I ! r I I I \ I I 
73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 


Figure 8 

There were 42,298 nonhuman 
primates reported used in research in 
1973, with 51,253 used in 1974 and a 
low of 36,202 used in 1975. From 1973 
to 1995 the number of nonhuman 


AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

other Animals Used in Research 

1 973 - 1 995 




(0 400,000 






— 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I \ 1 I I 

73 74 75 76 77 7B 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 


Figure 9 

high of 598,903 in 1985 and has gradual- 
ly decreased since 1985 to 333,379 in 
1995. From 1973 to 1989, the number 
of guinea pigs used in research 
remained largely in the range of 
400,000 to 500,000 with spikes into the 
500,000 to 600,000 range. Since 1990, 
the number has decreased. There is no 
apparent reason for the slight decrease, 
but it may be due to the type of re- 
search being done, increased apphca- 
tion of the 3R's, or advancement in 
methods and technology. 

Hamsters Used in Research 

There were 454,986 hamsters 
reported used in research in 1973 with 
a high of 503,590 in 1976 and a low of 
248,402 in 1995. From 1973 to 1981, 
the number of hamsters held fairly 
steady in the range of 400,000 to 
500,000. From 1982 to 1989, the figures 
also included the range of 300,000 to 
400,000. Although the numbers vary 
somewhat from 1990 to 1995, there is a 
general downward trend over this 6- 
year period. The data suggests no 
reasons for this slight decrease other 
than those suggested for guinea pigs 

Rabbits Used in Research 

There were 447,570 rabbits 
reported used in research in 1973, with 
a high of 554,385 used in 1987 and a 
low of 354,076 in 1995. Although use of 
rabbits has varied from year to year, 
the trend has held fairly steady with 
usage holding in the range of 400,000 to 
500,000. The number has held fairly 
steady over the years with some varia- 
tions. The rabbit appears to be the 
steadiest of all the animal numbers 
reported. It could be the species that is 
used most in research except for 
laboratory rats and mice, which are not 
regulated or reported at this time. 

Farm Animals Used in 

Farm animals were brought under 
regulation in June 1990, so the figures 
for that year may not be complete and 
may not indicate the true number of 
farm animals used in research in 1990. 
The data available indicates that the 
number of farm animals on a yearly 
basis would probably be close to the 
range of 200,000 to 300,000. The 1993 
annual report indicated there were 
365,233 farm animals used in research. 
A review of the annual reports by 
REAC showed this to be an incorrect 

figure because nonrcgulalcd animals 
such as chickens and other birds were 
reported. The correct figure for 1993 
is 165,416 farm animals used in re- 
search (table 2). There is insufficient 
data at this time to make any assump- 
tions on the trend of farm animal use 
in research. 

Other Animals Used in 

The category of Other Animals 
covers a broad range of animal 
species, from wild rats and mice, squir- 
rels, ferrets, and bats, to wild, exotic, 
hoof stock, carnivores, and marine 
mammals. There were 38,169 other 
animals used in 1973, which is also the 
lowest number reported, and 126,426 
other animals used in 1995. The 1993 
annual report indicated that 677,556 
other animals were used, which is a 
tremendous increase from 1992 
figures and initiated a review of the 
report by REAC. The review showed 
this figure to be wrong because of the 
inclusion of nonregulated animals 
reported by research facilities in the 
other animal category. The correct 
1993 figure for other animals used in re- 
search is 212,309 which is shown in 
table 2. The figures shown for 1990- 
1992 are also suspect because of the 
high numbers compared to figures for 
other years. A review was not made of 
the 1992 annual report figures for other 
animals but it is very likely that many 
of the nonregulated animals were 
reported and inadvertently included in 
the count for other animals. The 
general trend has been a significant in- 
crease in the number of other animals 
reported used in research since 1973. 
The increase in use of these animals 
may be partly due to the decreased use 
of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and 
hamsters. It may also be due to more 
research being done in the areas of 
wild animal management and the fact 
that some wild animals appear to be 
good animal models for certain disease 
conditions. Whatever the reasons may 
be, the use of other animals in research 
has increased significantly over the past 
23 years. H 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


Legislation cont'd from p.l 

act may be cited as the "Agricultural 
Market Transition Act." 

"Section 903. Regulation of Com- 
mercial Transportation of Equine for 

Subject to the availabihty of ap- 
propriations, the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture may issue guidelines for the 
regulation of commercial transporta- 
tion of equine for slaughter by per- 
sons regularly engaged in that activity 
within the United States. In carrying 
out this section, the Secretary shall 
review the food, water, and rest 
provided to equine for slaughter in 
transit, the segregation of stallions 
from other equine during transit, and 
such other issues as the Secretary con- 
siders appropriate." The Secretary 
may also conduct investigations and 
inspections, establish civil penalties 
and require people to maintain 
records and file reports. Related bill 
S. 1541. 

• S. 1847 A bill to amend the Pack- 
ers and Stockyards Act of 1921 to 
make it unlawful for any stock- 
yard owner, market agency, or 
dealer to transfer or market non- 
ambulatory cattle, sheep, swine, 
horses, mules, or goats, and for 
other purposes. 

Introduced on June 6, 1996, by 
Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and 
referred to the Committee on Agricul- 
ture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This bill 
may be cited as the "Downed Animal 
Protection Act." 

"It shall be unlawful for any stock- 
yard owner, market agency, or dealer 
to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, 
market, hold, or drag any nonam- 
bulatory livestock unless the nonam- 
bulatory livestock has been humanely 
euthanized." Related bill H.R. 2143. 

• S. 1899 A bill entitled the "Mollie 
Beattie Alaska Wilderness Area 

Introduced on June 24, 1996, by 
Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and signed 
into law by President Clinton on July 
2, 1996. 

"Section 702(3) of Public Law 96- 
487 is amended by striking 'Arctic Na- 
tional Wildlife Refuge Wilderness' 
and inserting 'Mollie Beattie Wilder- 
ness.' The Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to place a monument in 
honor of Mollie Beattie's contribu- 
tions to fish, wildlife, and waterfowl 
conservation and management at a 

suitable location that he designates 
within the [refuge]." Ed. note: Mollie 
Beattie was the Director of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. She died 
earher this year from cancer. 

• S. 1915 A bill to amend the En- 
dangered Species Act of 1973 to 
prohibit the sale of products 
labeled as containing endangered 
species, and for other purposes. 
Introduced on June 27, 1996, by 
James Jeffords (R-Vermont) and 
referred to the Committee on En- 
vironment and Public Works. This bill 
may be cited as the "Rhino and Tiger 
Product Labeling Act." 

"Congress finds that (1) the popula- 
tions of several magnificent and uni- 
que endangered species , such as the 
African black rhinoceros, the 
southern white rhinoceros, and many 
tiger subspecies, are declining; (2) 
growing demand throughout the 
world for wildlife and wildlife parts 
has created a market in which com- 
mercial exploitation has threatened 
certain wildhfe populations; (3) there 
is no legal mechanism enabling the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to con- 
fiscate products labeled as containing 
endangered species and prosecute the 
merchandiser for sale or display of 
the products; and (4) (A) although ap- 
proximately 90,000 import and export 
shipments occur annually in the 
United States, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service is able to maintain 
only 74 wildlife inspectors at 11 ports 
of entry to monitor the shipments; 
and (B) wildlife inspectors are able to 
physically inspect an estimated 5 per- 
cent of all shipments, making the 
detection rate of contraband wildlife 
products extremely low." 

Section 9(a) of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 is amended by in- 
cluding in the prohibition the sale of 
"any product labeled as containing 
any such species or any species of fish 
or wildlife Hsted in Appendix 1 to the 
Convention." The prohibition is also 
extended to endangered plants listed 
in Appendix 1 to the Convention. 

To find out the status of these or 
any other bills, contact the congres- 
sional bill status line at (202) 225- 
1772. TJiis infomiation is also avail- 
able on the World Wide Web at 

U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Proposes 
Greater Protection 
for Cats and Dogs 

July 3, 1996. The U.S. Depart- 
ment of Agriculture is proposing to 
amend the regulations for the humane 
treatment of dogs and cats under the 
Animal Welfare Act by disallowing 
tethering as a means of primary 
enclosure for dogs; revising tempera- 
ture requirements for housing and 
traveling facilities; and imposing new 
cage flooring requirements to enhance 
sanitation. The Act does not regulate 
privately owned pets. 

"We are proposing these changes 
to help ensure that dogs and cats 
protected under the AWA are treated 
in a humane manner," said Michael V. 
Dunn, assistant secretary for market- 
ing and regulatory programs. "Con- 
tinuous confinement of dogs on 
tethers is considered by many to be in- 
humane, and exposing dogs and cats 
to high temperatures can cause 
serious trauma or death. We also 
believe that coated wire flooring in 
dog and cat cages will improve sanita- 
tion, help eliminate foot injuries, and 
provide comfort for the animals." 

The proposed temperature chan- 
ges state that ambient temperatures 
must never exceed 90$F (32.2$C) 
when dogs or cats are present. 

"These proposals reflect concerns 
voiced by the public and affected in- 
dustries during a series of public meet- 
ings we held earlier this year," Dunn 
continued. "These meetings are an im- 
portant component of our continuing 
efforts to improve standards of care 
and strengthen enforcement of the 

For further information or a copy 
of Docket No. 95-078-1 (the proposed 
tethering and temperature require- 
ments) or Docket No. 95-100-1 (the 
proposed flooring requirements) contact: 

Stephen Smith, animal health tech- 
nician, animal care, REAC, APHIS, 
USDA, Suite 6D02, 4700 River Road 
Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234, 
phone: (301) 734-7833. 

These notices were published in 
the July 2 Federal Register. ■ 


AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 


Federal Policies on Access for Service 



Kelly Henderson, M.Ed., Department of Special Education, 
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 

For ages, humans have explored 
the potential heahng benefit of 
animal companions for people who are 
ill or who have disabilities. The use of 
animals to assist their ailing human 
counterparts dates to the early Greeks 
who gave horseback rides to raise the 
spirits of people who were incurably ill, 
and documentation from the seven- 
teenth century makes medical refer- 
ence to horseback riding as treatment 
for gout, neurological disorders, and 
low morale (6). Even the famous nurs- 
ing pioneer Florence Nightingale tes- 
tified to the benefits of pet animals for 
the sick (11). 

Since the middle of this century, 
the physical and emotional needs of dis- 
abled people in Western societies have 
became more visible and demanded 
more public attention (13). A variety 
of methods have been sought to in- 
crease the personal independence of 
people with disabilities. Since the 
1960's, use of companion animals to in- 
crease physical mobility has con- 
tributed to logistical and emotional in- 
dependence for many people with sen- 
sory, health, and other physical impair- 
ments. Probably the first systematic 
use of companion animals to assist dis- 
abled Americans was the training of 
dogs to guide people who are blind and 
visually impaired. While the earliest 
formal training of guide dogs in the 
United States dates back 65 years (8), 
widespread training has only occurred 
during the last three decades. Sixteen 
major guide dog training facilities 
operate in the United States (20). Each 
is administered independently. Guide 
dog training techniques are similar 
across schools, but policies, such as ap- 
pHcant requirements and types of dogs 
used, vary. 

While guide dogs for the blind are 
the most commonly identified com- 
panions for people with disabilities, a 
number of other partnerships have 
been initiated. In 1975, Canine Com- 
panions for Independence (CCI) 

pioneered the concept of the service 
dog, a highly trained canine used to as- 
sist people who have disabilities with 
spcciahzed services. CCI classifies 
specific types of service dogs by func- 
tion. Service dogs perform tasks such 
as operating light switches, retrieving 
items, pulling wheelchairs, and opening 
doors. Hearing dogs assist people who 
are deaf or hearing impaired by alert- 
ing them to sounds such as telephone 
rings, crying infants, alarms, and people 
calHng them by name. 

The largest of service animal train- 
ing organizations, CCI has four training 
centers across the United States. 
Several other groups operate training 
facihties either nationally or regionally. 
Policies vary by organization though 
many facilities prepare dogs to serve 
both mobility-impaired people and 
those with hearing impairments. 
Throughout the United States, nearly 
70 organizations train service dogs, and 
about 45 providers train hearing dogs 
(19). Assistance Dogs International, 
Inc., a nonprofit association of training 
programs, establishes standards that 
member organizations must meet. 

While canine assistants have great 
potential for improving the quality of 
life for many disabled people, the use 
of service animals remains an exception 
to the rule. In its 20-year history, CCI 
has trained only 600 animals. At least 9 
million Americans live with significant 
physical and sensory impairments (14), 
but there are only 10,000-12,000 assis- 
tance dogs at work, of which 7,000 are 
guide dogs (5). 

Social animals, those used to ad- 
dress animal-assisted therapy goals, are 
trained and used in a wide variety of 
settings including hospitals, nursing 
facilities, schools, and other institu- 
tions. While several national organiza- 
tions provide structured training and 
certification programs for these 
animals, most are not recognized as 
"service animals" under Federal law. 
Therefore, this category of assistance 

animals will not be referenced in this 
review of service animal policy. 

Policy Overview 

Federal policy dictating access 
and training rights for disabled people 
who have service animals has, but for 
the past decade, been virtually nonex- 
istent (1,2,9,12). In its absence, many 
individual States did address rights for 
service animals through laws providing 
disabled people access to public 
facilities and housing. To date, all 
States and the District of Columbia 
have to some extent legislated such ac- 
cess rights. However, the extent of 
coverage varies considerably State to 
State and many State codes do not in- 
clude reference to service dogs other 
than guide and hearing dogs. 

In two major pieces of Federal 
transportation and housing legislation, 
provisions to prohibit discrimination 
against people with disabilities were in- 
terpreted to include access for service 
animals. Regulations implementing the 
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (1) and 
the Fair Housing Act of 1988 (9) clarify 
that anti-discrimination protections ex- 
tend to people who use service animals. 

The Air Carrier Access Act 
of 1986 (ACAA) 

The first Federal legislation to 
directly address public access rights of 
people with disabilities who have ser- 
vice animals was the Air Carrier Access 
Act of 1986 (1). The act amended the 
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to pro- 
vide that prohibitions of discrimination 
against handicapped people apply to 
air carriers. Regulations clarify that air 
carriers must permit "dogs and other 
service animals used by handicapped 
people to accompany the people on a 
flight" (16). As a result of these 1986 
stipulations regarding air transport, the 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


1990 Americans with Disabilities Act 
does not reference air carriers in its 
Title II and III transportation require- 

The ACAA regulations provide 
one of the most specific statements of 
Federal policy regarding accommoda- 
tion of service animals. While efforts to 
implement other Federal laws, such as 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
rely largely on technical assistance 
guidance, regulatory examples, and set- 
tlements to guarantee access and ac- 
commodation rights for disabled 
people who have service animals, the 
ACAA directly regulates these rights. 
The act requires air carriers to permit 
service animals to accompany people 
with disabilities on flights (14 CFR 
382.55 (a)) (16). 

(1) Carriers shall accept as 
evidence that an animal is a service 
animal identification cards, other writ- 
ten documentation, presence of har- 
nesses or markings on harnesses, tags, 
or the credible verbal assurances of the 
quahfied handicapped person using the 

(2) Carriers shall permit a service 
animal to accompany a qualified hand- 
icapped individual in any seat which 
the person sits, unless the animal 
obstructs an aisle or other area that 
must remain unobstructed in order to 
facilitate an emergency evacuation. 

(3) In the event that special infor- 
mation concerning the transportation 
of animals outside the continental 
United States is either required to be 
or is provided by the carrier, the infor- 
mation shall be provided to all pas- 
sengers traveling outside the continen- 
tal United States with the carrier, in- 
cluding those traveling with service 

Service animals are also refer- 
enced in the act's regulations regarding 
seat assignments and clarifies that in 
the case that the service animal cannot 
be accommodated at the seat location 
of his/her human companion, the car- 
rier must offer the passenger the oppor- 
tunity to move with the animal to 
another seat as an alternative to requir- 
ing the animal to travel with checked 
baggage (14 CFR 382.37(c)). 

The Fair Housing 
Amendments Act 

In a comprehensive housing 
rights bill. Congress provided specific 

rights to accommodations for people 
with disabilities. The Fair Housing 
Amendments Act of 1988 prohibits dis- 
crimination in the sale or rental of a 
dwelling based on handicap (9). The 
act defines discrimination to include: 

a) A refusal to permit, at the expense of 
the handicapped person, reasonable 
modifications of existing premises 
occupied or to be occupied by such 
person if modifications may be 
necessary to afford such person full 
enjoyment of the premises...; or 

b) a refusal to make reasonable accom- 
modations in rules, pohcies, prac- 
tices, or services, when such accom- 
modations may be necessary to af- 
ford such person equal opportunity 
to use and enjoy a dwelling. 

The implementing regulations res- 
tate the law with regard to the policy on 
reasonable accommodations, and con- 
tribute an illustration by example (10): 

Example (1): A blind apphcant 
for rental housing wants to live in a 
dwelling unit with a seeing eye dog. 
The building has a no pets policy. It is 
a violation of Section 100.204 for the 
owner or manager of the apartment 
complex to refuse to permit the ap- 
plicant to live in the apartment with a 
seeing eye dog, because without the 
seeing eye dog, the blind person will 
not have an equal opportunity to use 
and enjoy a dwelling. 

The illustration does make clear 
that at least in the case of a guide dog 
for the blind, reasonable accommoda- 
tions in rules, policies, practices, or ser- 
vices include special consideration for 
housing of service animals. 

The Americans With 
Disabilities Act (ADA) 

National access rights for service 
animals (28 CFR 36.104 defines the 
term "service animal" as "any guide dog, 
signal dog, or other animal individually 
trained to provide assistance to an in- 
dividual with a disabihty.") across set- 
tings became a reality with the passage 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990 (2). Title I, administered by the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Com- 
mission (EEOC), prohibits employ- 
ment discrimination against qualified 
individuals with disabilities. Under 
Title I, discrimination includes not 
making reasonable accommodations to 
the known physical or mental limita- 

tions of an otherwise qualified in- 
dividual who is an applicant or 
employee unless such covered entity 
can demonstrate that accommodation 
would impose an undue hardship on 
the operations of the business of such 
covered entity. (42USC 12112(b)(5)(A)) 
Regulations (18) clarify the types 
of reasonable accommodations for 
which an employer is responsible. A 
sizable hst of reasonable accommoda- 
tions is noted in 29 CFR 1630.2(o) in- 
cluding modifications or adjustments to 
the work environment, or to the man- 
ner or circumstances under which the 
position held or desired is customarily 
performed, and acquisition or modifica- 
tions of equipment or devices (29 CFR 

Service Animal Information 

Additional information on the ac- 
quisition, training, and rights of ser- 
vice animals is available from: (Please 
note that "800" phone numbers may 
not be accessible outside the United 

Assistance Dog Providers in the 
United States — a complete guide to 
finding a guide, hearing, or service 
dog. Seizure alert and therapy dogs 
also included. Hardback, 168 pp., 
$27.00 (includes S&H) to: N.C. Ser- 
vice Dogs, 3598 W. Delphi Pike, 
Marion, IN 46952, phone: 317-384- 

Legal Rights of Guide Dogs, Hearing 
Dogs and Service Dogs — includes a 
summary of all State policies regard- 
ing service dog access. Softcover, 64 
pgs., $6.00 to: Assistance Dogs Inter- 
national, Inc., c/o Freedom Service 
Dogs, Inc., P.O. Box 150217, 
Lakewood, CO 80215-0217, phone: 

Delta Society National Service Dog 
Center - provides advocacy educa- 
tion, referral, research assistance, and 
a variety of other information services 
regarding service dogs. 289 Perimeter 
Road East, Renton, WA 98055-1329; 
800-869-6898 Voice, 800-809-2714 

Assistance Dog Institute — promotes 
research and development and 
provides education on assistance dog 
programs. P.O. Box 2334, Rohnert 
Park, CA 94927. 

Americans With Disabilities Act 
Information Line, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 800-514-0301 Voice, 800-514- 
0383 TDD. 


AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

Title II, Section 12132, of the 
ADA prohibits discrimination against 
quaHfied disabled people in public ser- 
vices including public transportation. 
Though the Title II regulations (28 
CFR 35.130) do require "reasonable 
modifications" to avoid discrimination, 
they do not directly acknowledge ac- 
cess rights of service animals. 

Of all sections of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, Title III refer- 
ences service animals most directly. 
Title III prohibits discrimination of 
people with disabilities in public accom- 
modations and services operated by 
private entities. Section 12182(b)(2)(A) 
clarifies specific prohibitions on dis- 
crimination on the basis of disability, 
and includes in the definition of dis- 

a failure to make reasonable 
modifications in policies, practices, 
or procedures, when such modifica- 
tions are necessary to afford such 
goods, services, facilities, privileges, 
advantages, or accommodations to 
individuals with disabilities, unless 
the entity can demonstrate that 
making such modifications would 
fundamentally alter the nature of 
such goods, services, facilities, 
privileges, advantages, or accom- 
modations. (42 use 

The U.S. Department of Justice 
(DOJ) implementing regulations (15) 
clarify "modifications in poUcies, prac- 
tices, or procedures." 28 CFR Section 
36.302(c) specifically addresses service 
animals and clarifies that "Generally, a 
public accommodation shall modify 
poHcies, practices, or procedures to 
permit the use of a service animal by an 
individual with a disability" (see AWIC 
Newsletter vol. 6 #2-4- Americans with 
Disabilities Act and its Applicability to 
Zoos). The regulation further clarifies 
that public accommodations are not re- 
quired to supervise or care for a service 

Implementation of the ADA 

The EEOC and the DOJ, Civil 
Rights Division, use several reference 
aids to clarify the legislative intent of 
the ADA. Both agencies publish tech- 
nical assistance manuals (21,22) that 
provide clarifications of the code and 
regulation through explanations and ex- 
amples. Both agencies also have 
authority to take a variety of actions in 

response to complaints and charges 
filed. Service animal policy is thus af- 
fected by the lawsuits, amicus briefs, 
and formal and informal settlement 
agreements brokered by the agencies. 

EEOC technical assistance 
guidelines (21) support the Title I 
regulatory language and define 
employers' responsibilities to make 
modifications for people with dis- 
abiUties who have service animals in the 

It may also be a reasonable accom- 
modation to permit an individual with a 
disability the opportunity to provide 
and utilize equipment, aids or services 
that an employer is not required to pro- 
vide as a reasonable accommodation. 
For example, it would be a reasonable 
accommodation for an employer to per- 
mit an individual who is bhnd to use a 
guide dog at work, even though the 
employer would not be required to pro- 
vide a guide dog for the employee. (29 
CFR 1630.2 App) 

Title III prohibits discrimination 
on the basis of disability in public ac- 
commodations. U.S. Department of 
Justice regulations do specifically 
define service animals and require 
public accommodations to modify 
policies and procedures to permit use 
of service animals. The Title III Techni- 
cal Assistance Manual (22) clarifies the 
definition of service animal by listing 
tasks typically performed by service 
animals: guiding people who have im- 
paired vision, alerting individuals with 
impaired hearing to the presence of in- 
truders or sounds, providing minimal 
protection or rescue work, pulling a 
wheelchair, or retrieving dropped items 

The manual reinforces the access 
policy via illustration. 

An individual who is blind wishes 
to be accompanied in a restaurant by 
her guide dog. The restaurant must per- 
mit the guide dog to accompany its 
owner in all areas of the restaurant 
open to other patrons and may not in- 
sist that the dog be separated from her 

The manual offers additional 
guidance regarding responsibilities of 
the service animal owner and of the 
public accommodation (III-4.2300). 

The care or supervision of a ser- 
vice animal is the responsibility of his 
or her owner, not the public accom- 
modation. A public accommodation 
may not require an individual with a dis- 

ability to post a deposit as a condition 
of permitting a service animal to accom- 
pany its owner in a place of public ac- 
commodation, even if such deposits are 
required for pets. 

In these cases, the technical assis- 
tance and interpretive guidance helps 
to secure public access and employ- 
ment accommodation rights for people 
with disabilities who have service 
animals. However, in a recent manual 
supplement, the guidance describes 
situations in which it would permissible 
for health and safety reasons to not 
allow access to service animals. The 
DOJ Title III Technical Assistance 
Manual (22) attempts to clarify these 
provisions by acknowledging that in 
rare circumstances, if the nature of the 
goods and services provided or accom- 
modations offered would be fundamen- 
tally altered or the safe operation of a 
public accommodation jeopardized, a 
service animal may not be allowed to 
enter (III-4.2300, 1994 Supplement). 

In practice, health concerns have 
given rise to conflicts about the access 
of service animals in medical facilities. 
Though many hospitals work to 
negotiate satisfactory access policies, 
some institutions remain less flexible, 
leaving disabled people with service 
animals to pursue legal remedies 
through State or Federal channels. 

ADA Complaint Resolution 

Both the EEOC and DOJ inves- 
tigate charges of ADA violations. The 
DOJ has been involved in a number of 
recent lawsuits, briefs, and settlements 
that address access and accommoda- 
tion rights for service animals. One 
case, Crowder v. Kitigawa (7), went to 
trial on constitutional, as well as ADA, 
Title II (prohibition of discrimination 
in activities of state and local govern- 
ment) claims. In February 1994, the 
U.S. District Court for the District of 
Hawaii ruled against the plaintiff, a 
visually disabled guide dog user who 
protested Hawaii's canine quarantine. 
In June 1994, the U.S. Department of 
Justice filed an amicus brief (23) sup- 
porting an appeal of the case, which is 
currently under review by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals. 

Several additional complaints 
regarding access rights for people with 
disabilities who have service animals 
have been pursued by the Department 
of Justice. In at least two formal and 
several informal settlement agreements 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


with the DOJ under Title III of the 
ADA, owners and operators of private 
businesses agreed to modify poUcies 
with respect to access for service 
animals. Upon negotiation with the 
DOJ, most pubHc accommodations and 
facilities agreed to take steps to ensure 
that disabled people who use service 
animals are provided access to the 
facilities. For example, an inn modified 
its policy to permit people with dis- 
abilities accompanied by service 
animals to stay without paying the $25 
flea extermination service fee. In 
another settlement, a drugstore chain 
agreed to modify its "no animals" 
policies by making exceptions for ser- 
vice animals. 

Other Implementation 

Beyond the regulatory enforcement 
and judicial interpretations of Federal 
law, access and accommodation rights 
for service animals are further affected 
by several other factors. To date, 
Federal policies fail to address a num- 
ber of aspects related to service 

The training of service animals is 
currently not regulated by Federal 
agencies. No Federal law or regulation 
includes reference to access for animals 
in training, although 21 States do 
secure such rights in State code (4). No 
guidelines for service animal trainers or 
for certification of the animals themsel- 
ves is found in Federal policy. Though 
a number of service animal training or- 
ganizations do maintain membership in 
Assistance Dogs International, Inc., 
and meet ADI standards for training, 
each organization may still maintain its 
own certification and evaluation 
criteria. While no federally recognized 
certification or training standards have 
yet been estabhshed, two Federal laws 
address certification or other proof of 
service animal status. Regulations im- 
plementing the ACAA require air car- 
riers to accept as evidence that an 
animal is a service animal identification 
cards, other written documents, 
presence of harnesses or other mark- 
ings on harnesses, tags or the credible 
verbal assurances of the qualified hand- 
icapped person using the animal (14 
CFR 382.55(a)(1)). Department of Jus- 
tice ADA technical assistance indicates 
that a number of States have programs 
to certify service animals; however, a 
private entity cannot insist on proof of 
State certification before permitting the 
entry of a service animal to a place of 
pubhc accommodation. The impor- 
tance of training and use of service 


animals to people with disabihties has 
yet to be recognized by the health in- 
surance industry (3). For example, the 
time a parent oi a child with a (Usability 
or an adult with a disability invests to at- 
tend a service animal training session 
(some as long as 6 weeks) is not 
covered by Federal Family and Medical 
Leave Act criteria of "serious illness" 

The use of service animals has im- 
proved the quality of life for people 
with sensory and physical disabilities. 
While people with disabilities in 
America still confront barriers erected 
by ignorance and misinformation, the 
three major Federal laws reviewed 
above work to defeat such discrimina- 
tion by guaranteeing access and accom- 
modation rights to people with dis- 
abilities who use service animals. 

Kelly Henderson can be reached at 
the University of Maryland, Department 
of Special Education, 1308 Benjamin 
Building, College Park, MD 20742-1161; 
301-405-6503, ore-mail: 


1. Air Carrier Access Act, 49 USC 
app. 1374 (1986). 

2. Americans With Disabilities Act, 
42 USC Part 12100(1990). 

3. Allen, K. (1995). Coping with life 
changes and transitions: The role of 
pets. InterActions 13(3): 5-10. 

4. Assistance Dogs International 
(1994). Legal rights of guide dogs, hear- 
ing dogs, and service dogs. Assistance 
Dogs InternationahLakewood, CO. 

5. Assistance Dog United Cam- 
paign. What is the Assistance Dog 
United Campaign and why is it needed? 
(Information sheet available from Assis- 
tance Dog Institute, Rohnert Park, CA 

6. Bustad, L.K. and L. Hines (1984). 
Historical perspectives of the human- 
animal bond. In The Pet Connection, 
R.K. Anderson, B.L. Hart & L.A. Hart, 
eds.. Center to Study Human- Animal 
Relationships and the Environ- 
ments:Minneapolis, pp. 15-29. 

7. Crowder v. Kitagawa, 842 F.Supp. 
1257 (D. Hawaii 1994). 

8. Fames, E. and T. Eames (1989). 
A comparison of the guide dog move- 
ments of England and the United 
States. Journal of Visual Impairment 
and Blindness 83(4): 215-218. 

9. Fair Housing Amendments Act, 
42 USC Sect. 3604 (1988). 

10. Fair Housing Amendments Rule, 
24 CFR Sect. 100.204 (1989). 

11. Hines, L.M. and L.K. Bustad 
(1986). Historical perspectives on 
human-animal interactions. National 
Forum 66(1): 4-6. 

12. Housing and Urban-Rural 
Recovery Act, 12 USC 170 In- 1 (1983). 

13. Karan, O.C. & Greenspan, S. 
(Eds.). (1995). Community Rehabilita- 
tion for People with Disabilities. Butter- 

14. La Plante, M.P. (1991). Medical 
conditions associated with disability. In 
Disability in the United States: A portrait 
from national data, S. Thompson-Hof- 
fman and I.F. Storck, eds., 
Springer:New York, pp.34-72. 

15. Nondiscrimination on the Basis 
of DisabiUty by Public Accommoda- 
tions and in Commercial Facilities, 28 
CFR Part 36(1991). 

16. Nondiscrimination on the Basis 
of Handicap in Air Travel, 14 CFR 
Part 382 (1990). 

17. Ptak, A.L. (1995). Service dogs 
for children with disabilities: When are 
they the right prescription? Delta 
Society Alert 6(3): 1-2. 

18. Regulations to Implement the 
Equal Employment Provisions of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 
CFR Part 1630. 

19. Stiverson, C. (in press). ^55/5- 
tance do^ providers in the United States 
(2nd Edition). (To be available from 
N.C. Service Dogs, P.O. Box 160, Fair- 
view, N.C. 28730). 

20. Stiverson, C. & Dodson, G. 
(1995, March). Assistance dog providers 
in the United States. Ball State Univer- 
sity:Muncie, IN. 

21. U.S. Equal Employment Oppor- 
tunity Commission (1992). A technical 
assistance manual on the employment 
provisions (Title I) of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (Publication no. 
EEOC:Washington, DC. 

22. U.S. Department of Justice 
(1992, 1993, 1994). The Americans with 
Disabilities Act Title III Technical Assis- 
tance Manual and Supplements. U.S. 
DOJ: Washington,D.C. 

23. U.S. Department of Justice 
amicus curiae brief in Crowder v. 
Kitigawa (submitted June 13, 1994), 
No. 94-15403 ■ 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

Rex Leonard Burch (1926-1996) 

Humane Scientist, 
Prophet, Dreamer, and Visionary 


Michael Balls, D. Phil. 

This article originally appeared in Science and Animal Care, 

Spring 1996. Reprinted by permission of 
Working for Animals used in Research, Drugs, and Surgery 
(WARDS), 8150 Leesburg Pike, Suite 512, Vienna, VA 22182. 

Rex Burch died in a hospital in Norwich, Norfolk, 
England, on March 9, 1996, after a long fight against 
a terminal illness, borne with a courage which amazed both his 
friends and those who cared for him. He left us a priceless 
legacy, in the form of his book. The Principles of Humane Ex- 
perimental Technique, written with William Russell and first 
pubUshed in 1959. 

The main conclusion of the book is that all concerned in 
any way with laboratory animal use have a moral duty to do all 
they can to replace the need for animal experiments, to 
reduce the numbers of animals used to an unavoidable mini- 
mum, and to refine any procedures necessarily used, so as to 
minimize any pain or distress suffered by animals in attempts 
to meet the essential needs of human beings and other 
animals. These Three Rs (replacement, reduction and refine- 
ment) are the basis of the concept of alternatives, which is 
now enshrined in various national and international laws, and 
the focus of attention of organizations all over the world, in- 
cluding CAAT (the Center for Alternatives to Animal Test- 
ing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland), 
FRAME (the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medi- 
cal Experiments, Nottingham UK), and ECVAM (the 
European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 
Ispra, Italy). 

The greatest value of the Three Rs concept is that it 
can encourage unity and cooperation among those who are 
otherwise divided. Those who want to see the fastest possible 
end to all experimentation can work to reduce, refine and 
replace with those whose current responsibilities make some 
animal use unavoidable. 

The Three Rs are not only good for animals, they 
are also good for science. Russell and Burch spelled it out 
like this in what I like to call their Humanity Criterion: 

"If we are to use a criterion for choosing experiments to 
perform, the criterion of humanity is the best we could possib- 
ly invent. The greatest scientific experiments have always 
been the most humane and the most aesthetically attractive, 
conveying that sense of beauty and elegance which is the es- 
sence of science at its most successful." 

The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique 
resulted from a project set up in 1954 by the British Univer- 
sities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFA W). Rex Burch 
travelled all over Britain during the next five years, and in- 
terviewed more than 100 scientists. 

When the book was published, it was very well 
received, and Charles Hume, Founder of UFAW, expected it 
to revolutionize attitudes toward laboratory animals and the 
ways in which they were treated and cared for. Strangely, and 
for reasons which nobody appears to fully understand, this did 
not happen immediately. The book was largely ignored 
during the 1960s, partly because their UFAW-funded project 
being complete, Russell and Burch themselves embarked on 
the next stages of their careers. William Russell became a suc- 
cessful comparative psychologist at the University of Reading, 
where he is now Professor Emeritus, and Rex Burch set up a 
microbiological testing service, in which he established high 
scientific standards and a reputation for concern for his cus- 
tomers which are no less legendary than his contributions to 
laboratory animal welfare. 

The Three Rs were "rediscovered" during the 1970s, part- 
ly because of the development of FRAME and other replace- 
ment alternative organizations, partly because 1975-76 was 
declared Animal Welfare Year in Britain, to mark the 100th 
anniversary of the passage of the Cruelty to Animals Act in 
1876, which regulated animal experimentation in Britain for 
more than 100 years, and partly because of an investigation by 
Professor David Smyth, which resulted in the publication of 
hishook. Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, in 1978. By 
the mid- 1980s, the Three Rs concept had become an integral 
part of new laboratory animal protection laws, notably of 
Directive 86/609/EEC, which is binding on all 15 member 
states of the European Union. However, it was not until the 
late 1980s that Russell and Burch themselves were " redis- 
covered," first by Martin Stephens, of the Humane Society of 
the United States, (HSUS), and Alan Goldberg, of CAAT. I 
did not meet Rex Burch until 1994, although I had visited 
Sheringham, the small seaside town in Norfolk where he had 
set up his testing laboratory, almost every year since he first 
went there in 1972. 1 must have walked within a few feet of his 
laboratory on dozens of occasions. I shall always wish that I 
had noticed the plaque outside the building so that our 
friendship could have been longer. 

To the delight of Rex Burch among many others, great 
events have already happened during the 1990s. The HSUS 
has established an annual Russell & Burch award and 
FRAME has named its new headquarters Russell & Burch 
House. William Russell was the chief guest at the First World 
Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, 
organized by Alan Goldberg and held in Baltimore in Novem- 
ber 1993. 

Sadly, Rex Burch was too ill to travel to Washington to 
accept the first HSUS Russell & Burch Award, to attend the 
First World Congress, or to join Professor Russell in declaring 
Russell & Burch House open. Alan Goldberg and I therefore 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


decided that if Rex Burch couldn't come to us, we would go to 

As a result, an ECVAM Workshop on The Three Rs: The 
Way Forward was held at Sheringham, May 30- June 3, 1995. 
Rex Burch and William Russell were both present, along with 
20 of the world's leading Three Rs campaigners. The report of 
this workshop {Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (ATLA) 23: 
838-866, 1995) contains 58 far-reaching recommendations, but 
this occasion was no less important because it clearly meant a 
great deal to Rex Burch himself. The participants unani- 
mously reaffirmed their commitment to the Three Rs with 
the following words: 

"Humane science is good science, and this is best 
achieved by vigorous application of the Three Rs: reduction 
alternatives, refinement alternatives, replacement alternatives. 
Thus, the only acceptable animal experiment is one which 
uses the smallest possible number of animals, and causes the 
least possible pain or distress which is consistent with the 
achievement of a justifiable scientific purpose, and which is 
necessary because there is no other way of achieving that pur- 
pose. Any proposed experiment on animals should be sub- 
jected to prior and effective expert review by an ethics com- 
mittee or an equivalent body. The Three Rs should be seen as 
a challenge and as an opportunity for reaping benefits of 
every kind - scientific, economic and humanitarian -not as a 

A number of Rex's friends had hoped that he would 
write his autobiography. He did begin to do so, but the final 
stages of his illness intervened. He did, however, write the 
Progress of Humane Experimental Technique Since 1959- A Per- 
sonal View, which was published in 1995 {ATLA 23: 776-783). 
In this article, he describes how he became involved in the 
UFAW project, the production of the book and, with par- 
ticular delight, his reactions to the tremendous progress made 
by the Three Rs concept in recent years. He ended this, his 
last publication, with the following words: 

"Included in our dreams of 1959 were centers to coor- 
dinate work and progress researchers on an international 
scale and, above all, sponsors from both industries and govern- 
ments. These have come to pass, and bring me to closing with 
a quotation (from the Bible) to which I have become very at- 
tached, ''Your sons and daughters shall prophecy, your old men 
shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. " 

Rex Burch was an outstanding human being, remarkable 
because of his lifelong enthusiasm for science (his school 
friends called him "The Professor") and his concern for all 
those with whom he came into contact. With regard to 
laboratory animal welfare, he was a prophet, a dreamer and a 
visionary. With William Russell, he established the founda- 
tions on which a sound, reahstic and far-reaching superstruc- 
ture can be built. Let us get on with the work by contributing 
our own particular talents to the achievement of the Three Rs 

Michael Balls is Head of the European Center for the 
Validation of Alternative Methods, Ispra, Italy, Chairman of the 
Trustees of FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in 
Medical Experiments), and Emeritus Professor in the University 
of Nottingham Medical School. He was awarded the 1994 Rus- 
sell & Burch Award of the Humane Society of the United States. 


• Revised Guide for the Care and Use of 
Laboratory Animals Available 

The Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources (ILAR) 
of the National Academy of Sciences has published the 1996 
revision of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory 
Animals (Guide). The Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on 
Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals requires that 
institutions receiving PHS for activities involving animals base 
their programs of animal care and use on the Guide and com- 
ply, as applicable, with the Animal Welfare Act and other 
Federal statutes and regulations relating to animals. By July 
31, 1997, all PHS-assured institutions are expected to have 
conducted at least one semiannual program and facility 
evaluation, complete with reasonable and specific plans and 
schedules for corrections of deficiencies where appropriate, 
using the 1996 Guide as the basis for the evaluation. 

Copies of the Guide are available from the Office for 
Protection from Research Risks at (301) 496-7163 ext. 226; 
ILAR at (202) 334-2590 and ; the National Center for Re- 
search Resources, National Institutes of Health at (301) 435- 
0744. It is also available on the World Wide Web at 

• New Videos 

Basics of Aseptic Surgery and Anesthesia in Rodents 

Filmed in a laboratory setting, this 21-minute video is 
designed for research and educational personnel who per- 
form surgery on rodents. In the video, a laboratory rat is used 
to demonstrate techniques that are applicable to rats and 
other small laboratory rodents. The initial demonstration 
shows how to restrain rodents in preparation for an in- 
traperitoneal injection of anesthetic (ketamine-xylazine). 
Once the animal is anesthetized, the surgeon prepares multi- 
ple sites for operative procedures. In addition to anesthesia 
by injection, the video demonstrates two different methods of 
inhalation anesthesia, precision vaporizer and closed con- 
tainer. Discussion also focuses on personal attire and scrub- 
bing procedures that the surgeon uses to prepare for the 
surgery. Once the animal and surgeon are prepared, the 
animal is moved to the surgery area, and techniques are 
presented for maintaining a sterile field and performing 
surgeries on multiple animals. The presentation then focuses 
on options and recommendations for monitoring the animal 
during anesthesia and the postoperative period. Use of 
laboratory animals in recovery surgery is common in research 
and education, and Federal laws mandate that aseptic techni- 
ques be followed in the conduct of such surgery. This video is 
designed to begin to meet that mandate and to improve the 
welfare of animals used in surgery. 

Item # 25051 

COST: Purchase (U.S.): 1/2-inch VHS-$110 

Purchase (International): 1/2-inch VHS PAL or 1/2-inch 

VHS SECAM-$110; prepayment in U.S. dollars required. 

Shipping and insurance charges are paid by the customer. 


AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No. 2 

RENTAL (U.S. only): 1/2-inch VHS--$29 for 3 days. For 
rental orders only, call (800) 826-0132 or (814) 865-6314 
or e-mail: 

TO ORDER, CONTACT: Media Sales, Continuing and 
Distance Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 
820 North University Drive, Suite D, University Park, PA 
16802-1003 or phone (814) 863-3102, fax (814) 865-3172, 
Or call toll free: (800) 770-2111 
Tliis publication is available in alternative media on re- 
quest. Additional information can be found at 
Surgery/Defau It. html 

Peter Singer Lecture at the University of Wisconsin 

A 1995 presentation by philosopher and author Peter 
Singer focusing on "The Great Ape Project" is available on 
videotape. The 53-minute video is entitled Humans and 
Animals: Bridging the Gap and is available for U.S. $10 from 
Animal Liberation Action Group, Campus Connection, 
Reeve Memorial Union, University of Wisconsin at Osh- 
kosh, 748 Algoma Blvd., Oshkosh, WI 54901-3512, phone: 
(414) 235-4887, fax: (414) 424-7317, e-mail: Animal- 

• Electronic Newsletter: NetVet Links 

Ken Boschert, DVM, founder of the popular website 
NetVet, introduces NetVet Links, an electronic periodic sum- 
mary of new veterinary websites. The inaugural edition 
(May 1996) includes over 100 sites. The newsletter will be 
distributed to the following mailing lists and online services: 
LIB-L, PROMED, NOAH, and VIN. For additional infor- 
mation, contact Dr. Boschert, Washington University, 
Division of Comparative Medicine, Box 8061, 660 S. Euclid 
Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110, phone: (314) 362-3700, fax: (314) 
362-6480, e-mail: ken@wudcm.v^ 

• APHIS Forms Available on the Web 

USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) has made many of its forms available on the World 
Wide Web. The forms are in PostScript and in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). The user must install the Adobe 
Acrobat Reader to view and print the PDF files. Program 
Units that have posted forms are Biotechnology, Biologies, 
and Environmental Protection; Plant Protection and 
Quarantine; and Veterinary Services. For more informa- 
tion, contact Keith Reding at 

• lACUC Seminar and Resource Guide 

lACUC: The Charge and the Challenge II, an interactive 
seminar for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee 
(lACUC) members, will be held on November 18, 1996, at 
the Merrill Lynch Conference and Training Center, 
Plainsboro (near Princeton), New Jersey. Registration for 
individuals whose institutions are members of New Jersey 
Association for Biomedical Research (ABR) is $100; non- 

members: $125. For a registration form, contact New Jersey 
ABR, P.O. Box 8449, Elizabeth, NJ 07208, phone: (908) 355- 
4456, fax: (908) 355-2938, e-mail: 

New Jersey ABR has produced a revised edition of 
Animals in Research: A Resource Guide. The spiral-bound 
book was compiled in response to requests from educators, 
librarians, and students for information about use of animals 
in research, education, and consumer product testing. To 
order, send a check for $30 payable to New Jersey ABR, P.O. 
Box 8449, Elizabeth, NJ 07208. 

• National Cell Culture Center 

The National Cell Culture Center is a resource facility 
that provides large-scale mammalian cell culture services. 
The center, available to researchers throughout the United 
States and Canada, has been established to alleviate the 
shortage of facilities and expertise required to meet the cell 
culture needs of the biomedical research community. It 
provides researchers with large quantity production of mam- 
malian cells in suspension or monolayer cultures, produc- 
tion of monoclonal antibodies, and nonhybridoma cell 
secreted proteins. Direct programmatic inquiries can be ad- 
dressed to Elaine Young, phone: (301) 435-0776, e-mail: AppHcation and resource inquiries 
should be addressed to Dr. Mark Hirschel, phone: (800) 

• Department of Defense Biomedical Website 

The Department of Defense (DoD) website features 
descriptions of federally funded DoD biomedical research, 
testing, and training programs. Areas covered include infec- 
tious diseases, biological hazards, toxicology, medical educa- 
tion, laboratory animals, and more. The URL is 

• Animal Welfare Act Violations 

August 1, 1996. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
recently charged licensed animal dealers Glen G. 
Wrigleyand Buckshire Corp. of Perkasie, Pennsylvania, with 
violations of the regulations and standards of the Animal 
Welfare Act in 1994 and 1995. APHIS inspectors found 
violations in the areas of recordkeeping, veterinary care, 
housing, sanitation, pest control, and storage. 

Note: APHIS news releases, program announcements, 
and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access 
the APHIS Home Page at and 
click on "APHIS Press Releases." Anyone with an e-mail 
address can sign-up to recieve APHIS press releases auto- 
matically. Send an e-mail message to major- and leave the subject blank. In 
the message, type subscribe press_releases 

• SCAWontheNet 

You can now reach the Scientists Center for Animal 
Welfare (SCAW) by e-mail at: ■ 

AWIC Newsletter, Summer 1996, Volume 7, No.2 


Courtesy of Hereford World 

National Youth Livestock Program 
Ethics Symposium 

Recent times have given rise to the pubUc revelation of unethical 
and illegal activity associated with youth livestock programs across 
the United States. While the majority of exhibitors at youth livestock 
expositions are responsible stewards of their animals, the actions of a 
few unethical individuals could endanger the existence of educational 
youth livestock programs. 

In keeping with its history of addressing issues of concern in 
animal agriculture, the Livestock Conservation Institute will facilitate 
a Youth Livestock Program Ethics Symposium on December 6-8, 
1996, at the Hyatt Regency in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. 

The symposium, designed to help livestock show competitors, 
educators, and others deal with the problem of unethical activities, 
will include two "Super Sessions" keying on the topics "Adult Involve- 
ment-What's Excessive?" and "Jackpot Shows-How to Make Them 
Part of the Solution." 

The symposium will also include break-out sessions on individual 
youth livestock issues and workshops that will include information 
about innovative programs that are addressing ethical issues. 

For registration information, please contact the Livestock Conser- 
vation Institute at (502) 782-9798 or fax: (502) 782-0188. 

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 
religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require 
alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at 

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 
720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. 

United States Department of Agriculture 
Agricultural Research Service 
National Agricultural Library 
AWIC Newsletter Staff 
10301 Baltimore Ave. 
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351 

Penalty for Private Use, $300 

ISSN 1050-561X 

If changes are required to your mailing address, enter them on the address label and return 
it or a copy of it to the above address. If you wish to be removed from the mailing list for 
this pubhcation check here and return this page or a copy of it to the above address. 


is published quarterly and distributed free of charge by the 
National Agricultural Library. The Animal Welfare 
Information Center Newsletter provides current 
information on animal welfare to investigators, technicians, 
administrators, exhibitors, and the public. Mention of 
commercial enterprises or brand names does not constitute 
endorsement or imply preference by the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. Articles appearing in this newsletter do not 
necessarily represent positions or policies of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture or any agency thereof. 

Tim Allen, Editor 

D'Anna Jensen, Production and Layout 

Michael Kreger, Assistant Editor 

WWW Address